Originally posted by bdery Please, let's go lightly on the bold font, no need to be virtually screaming at each other.
Shouting is ALL CAPS; bold is for
emphasis.
Originally posted by bdery I think your wording (useless lenses) is stretching it. It is true that many designers now rely on the automated corrections, and compromise some aspects (often distortion and vignetting) to deliver their lenses.
Not at all. And I must say, I'm surprised you disagree with me.
I'm not talking about merely "imperfect" lenses; I'm talking about things like 6.2% barrel distortion and 12.6EV vignetting (see
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 STM IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis).
And I'm talking about automatically correcting CA so the lenses will get better reviews.
Originally posted by bdery Naming lenses from Pentax which are imperfect without those corrections is possible. The figures are all there in the reviews. Naming useless lenses is more difficult, especially since we'd probably disagree on the definition of useless.
You are moving the goalposts; am I supposed to believe there's no difference between imperfect lenses (they all are) and lenses relying on forced software corrections?
I remember when Pentaxforums said the DA 560mm is not a full frame lens,
because of a measured 1.3EV vignetting*. How the standards have changed, once other makers started software-correcting vignetting!
* obviously, I disagreed with that as well - many long lenses from other makers having similar, even higher levels of vignetting